Ancestry

Oh, the things you learn when researching your family tree!

My 24th great-grandfather was king of Leinster, the southwest province of Ireland, in the 12th century.
Isaac Newton was my 1st cousin, 13 times removed.
Mark Twain was my 6th cousin, 4 times removed.
Jimmy Carter is also my 6th cousin, 4 times removed.
Lyndon B. Johnson was my 8th cousin, 2 times removed.
Booker T. Washington was my 9th cousin.

I am also distantly related to JFK, Judy Garland, Butch Cassidy, Percy Bysse Shelley, William Faulkner, Willa Cather, Helen Keller, William Randolph Hearst, and at least two signers of the Declaration of Independence.

All information courtesy of Ancestry.com.

For J.D., who soon will see her Lord.

O death, let me die
So I may live.

O death, close my eyes
So I may see
White shores to the West
Of a shining sea.

O death, let me sleep
So I may rise
In that blessed morn
Of golden skies.

O death, stop my mouth
So I may sing,
"Glory, laud, honor
To the righteous King."

O death, thou harsh foe
Of mortal men,
Thy pow'r is broken
And I call thee friend.

O death, let me die
So I may live.


©2007 Jeff Cavanaugh.

The Oddities of English

I'm here, I'm just getting re-adjusted to academic life.

I've said for a while that one of the best things about learning Latin in college was how much it strengthened my grasp of English grammar. I'm experiencing a similar phenomenon as I plunge into the considerably murkier waters of Hebrew. It's not helping me understand how better to use English, as Latin did, at least not yet. Rather, it is making me more aware of just how odd and difficult a language English is, even preposterously so.

Let's just consider spelling. Do you realize how absurdly we native English-speakers spell things? We don't spell them the way we pronounce them, for starters. We spell them, in many cases, the way they used to be pronounced hundreds of years ago. Knife is one example: the initial K is silent, though it was once pronounced in the word's Old and Middle English ancestors.

Then there are all the useless letters in the alphabet. Letters whose functions are performed perfectly well by other letters, and whose presence in the alphabet just leads to confusion. C is a great example; its hard sound is also produced by K, and S does a great job all by itself with the soft sound. X and Q don't even have sounds--they have combinations of other letters' sounds, ks and kw. It is all eckstremely kweer.

And vowels! English has the most confused system for reproducing vowel sounds. Just think how many different ways you can represent the vowel sound from the word shoe. Oe as in shoe, ew as in threw, ough as in through, oo as in spoon, eu as in eucharist, ue as in flue, and ou as in you. Need I go on? Yoo and I need one consistent way to spell a given sound, so it's not so confyoosing.

In closing, I will leave you with this phonetic gem from Douglas Wilson's The Paideia of God, which illustrates some of the difficulty. "A rough, dough-faced, thoughtful ploughman strode through the streets of Scarborough; after falling into a slough, he coughed and hiccoughed."

Phonetic transliteration for the understandably confused: "A ruff, doe-faced, thawtful plowman strode throo the streets of Scarboruh; after falling into a sloo, he coffed and hiccupped."

Sigh.

More on College Wear

In my article linked from my last post, I talked about the stylishness of college men in years past. In support of that point, I offer this site--pictures of student members of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau that span the years from 1914 to 1967.

Below are the fellows from 1935-36.

Dressing Well

It's been a while since I've posted, mainly because I've been busy with our move to Louisville, Kentucky. I'm hoping to post more frequently in the coming days and weeks.

A few months ago I began thinking here about why Christian men should care about the way they dress. I haven't done much with the series since then.

However, I've just had my first-ever article published, and it deals with the topic a bit:
Making the Most of College: The Importance of Dressing Well

Wiki-surfing

Wikipedia has grown to be one of my favorite websites. Next to Google, I think it's one of the most useful tools on the web. Hardly a day goes by, it seems, when I don't look up multiple things on Wikipedia. I haven't yet found a topic that didn't have at least a short article written about it.

Wikipedia can also be dangerous, however. I've found that when I look something up, I rarely stay just on that one article's page. Every Wikipedia page contains numerous links in the text to articles on other, related topics. I often see another link that looks interesting, click on it, read that page, click on a link to yet another article, and so on. Sometimes it can eat up a lot of one's time, and sometimes the trail of links can get pretty long. By the end of my Wiki-surfing (when I finally force myself to get back to work), I'll often be on a topic that has nothing to do with what I originally came to look up.

Here's a recent example. I heard about a particular dog breed, the Tosa, and decided to look it up. That to the following string: Tosa-->Sumo-->Yokozuna-->Onogawa Kisaburo-->Jujutsu-->Karate-->Syngman Rhee-->Cold War.

From dogs to the Cold War, by way of Japanese culture. Weird. And I've had even longer and stranger Wiki-surfing chains.

Straw Hat Day

Yesterday, May 15, was Straw Hat Day, the day when hat retailers in the US traditionally encouraged men to put away their warm felt hats and switch to cooler straw ones.

I have a classic Panama hat on order, but it has to come from Ecuador and so it didn't get here in time. Instead, I wore my vintage Cavanagh boater to mark the occasion.

The boater, or skimmer as it's also called, was once the standard summer hat for well-dressed men, for at least the first three decades of the 20th century. Boaters were worn with everything from beach wear to tuxedos (when accessorized with a black ribbon). A photo from 1912 of the congregation of Capitol Hill Baptist Church standing outside the new church building that was under construction shows nearly every one of several dozen men wearing boaters. In fact, if you look closely enough at the Paris 1919 cover below, you can see that while the heads of government are wearing top hats to go with their formal frock coats, their aides behind are wearing boaters with their suits.

Travelers returning from abroad made the Panama hat gradually more popular, and Panamas eventually replaced boaters as the standard summer hat. In these hatless days, the boater is now relegated to a costume piece, worn mostly by barbershop quartets and actors reprising Dick Van Dyke's role in Mary Poppins. Like the morning coat, the tailcoat, and stiff collars, the boater is on life support in the world of menswear. However, with the resurgence of hat wearing in general, perhaps the boater will experience a new era of acceptability as a legitimate alternative in headwear for men with style.

If at first you don't succeed...

Recently I've begun reading Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed The World, by Margaret MacMillan. It is an account of the Paris Peace conference in 1919 following the armistice that ended World War I, which produced the Treaty of Versailles and founded the League of Nations.

I was particularly interested to read this, from the book's foreword by Richard Holbrooke:

In the headline version of history, the road from the Hall of Mirrors to the German invasion of Poland only twenty years later is usually presented as a straight line. But as MacMillan forcefully demonstrates, this widely accepted view of history distorts the nature of the decisions made in Paris and minimizes the importance of actions taken in the intervening years.

......MacMillan corrects the widely held view that thre reparations payments impose by the victors were so onerous as to have caused the wreck of the German economy that paved the way for Hitler.

The view which Ms. MacMillan apparently corrects in this work is one that sounded familiar to me. While I'm interested in history generally and wanted to read something on World War I, I also have another reason for wanting to read this book. You see, when I was a freshman in college, I completely, utterly, and totally botched a paper on Hitler's rise to power for Dr. Sanders' History of the Western World class. I think I got a D on the paper and, consequently, a C in the class--the worst of my college career.

Apparently I didn't understand the situation then, as I believe I repeated the very view that Mr. Holbrooke talks about above. So, I thought that now would be a good time to remedy that situation and come to a better understanding of the events. I think Dr. Sanders would be proud.

Eastern Market Burns

Eastern Market, a Capitol Hill landmark, caught fire this morning. Most of the South Hall, where the market's shops and food stalls were located, was consumed in the blaze. This is a heavy loss for the area, as it has been a huge part of the Hill community for over 130 years. I have enjoyed Saturday morning walks down to the Market for breakfast at the Market Lunch counter and fresh produce from the farmer's market outside. The french toast--the best I've ever tasted--will be especially missed.

WaPo photo slideshow of the Market here.

Climate Change Hits Mars

Hasn't anyone told the Martians to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions?

On the bright side, maybe Al Gore will be making the trip to investigate.

CAPH

The Concerned Alumni of Patrick Henry website has been updated with a new look and updated content. It will be further expanded in coming weeks, so stay tuned.

Why Technology Is Not Enough

Eye halve a spelling check her;
It came with my pea sea.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye kin knot sea.

Eye ran this poem threw it
Your sure reel glad two no.
Its vary polished in it's weigh,
My checker tolled me sew.

A check her is a bless sing;
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right awl stiles two reed,
And aides me when aye rime.

Each frays come posed up on my screen
Eye trussed too bee a joule;
The checker pours o'er every word
To cheque sum spelling rule.

Bee fore wee rote with checkers
Hour spelling was inn deck line,
Butt now when wee dew have a laps,
Wee are knot maid too wine.

Butt now bee cause my spelling
Is checked with such grate flare,
Their are know faults with in my cite,
Of nun eye am a wear.

Now spelling does knot phase me,
It does knot bring a tier;
My pay purrs awl due glad den
With wrapped words fare as hear.

To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be proud;
And wee mussed dew da best wee can
Sew flaws are knot aloud.

That's why eye brake in two averse
Cuz eye dew want too please.
Sow glad eye yam that aye did bye
This soft wear four pea seas.

Creation, Stewardship, and Eschatology

While recent posts have made it clear I'm skeptical on the prevailing theories of human-induced climate change, I should also make it clear that I do think environmental issues are important. God has entrusted His creation as a stewardship to those made in His image, and we are called to be faithful with that charge. Christians have even more reason to do so, as we understand that Christ's rule is not only over the hearts of his people but extends to all of creation in all its aspects. For that reason, I think that pollution, for example is a bad thing, and efforts to use land responsibly are good things.

Unfortunately, too many conservatives these days (in the US, at least) believe that environmental concerns impinge on capitalistic venture and the all-important individual freedom that is the god of our liberal society. Even many Christians sadly believe that creation exists for man's use (over against stewardship) and see no problem with individual or societal lifestyles that destroy the beauty of the created world. Both of these are problematic for reasons that I think are almost painfully obvious from Scripture, but which I'd be happy to elaborate later, if necessary.

One question has long plagued me, though. Passages like 2 Peter 3, Hebrews 1, and Matthew 24 seem to indicate that the created world, regardless of its beauty or creational goodness, is destined to be destroyed in the last days. What then, is the eternal use of caring for creation, if it's going to be consumed in fire? Isn't it all a bit like painting the rails on a sinking ship?

Neocalvinist blogger Steve Bishop is doing a series of posts on environmental issues called "Christians--the reluctant greens." In his latest entry, he addresses the question I just outlined and explains why it's the product of a faulty eschatology. It's a very interesting, and persuasive, piece of exegetical reasoning. It also has clear implications beyond the issue of environmental stewardship. The idea that earthly work is ephemeral (and therefore of no ultimate significance) is mitigated if the earth will not be destroyed, but instead transformed. There is hope that we can contribute to efforts--social, political, environmental, cultural--that will become part of the new heavens and the new earth because they have been faithful in light of the reality of Christ's rule over and renewal of all things.

Washington and the District of Columbia

While most of the rest of the country thinks that Washington, D.C. is one place on the banks of the Potomac, those who live here know differently: Washington and the District of Columbia are two very different cities that happen to occupy the same 68 square miles.

Washington is a seat of power and authority, a hub of business and culture, and a place where people from all over the world come to see the sights and engage with the United States. The District, by contrast, is a crime-ridden and poverty-stricken place where broken people live broken lives and where people from all over the world don't go, fearing for their safety. In Washington, lobbyists spend millions to secure billions in federal funding. In the District, people are desperate for your pocket change. In Washington, a crook ocasionally gets elected, but he's always from somewhere else and folks pretend not to know or care about his private life. In the District, homegrown crooks are near and dear to the people's hearts, and a crackhead can be elected to four terms as mayor and at least one on the city council.

It's not always clear where one begins and the other ends; it isn't just a matter of staying on the right side of H street. Living in DC means you get to walk past the US Capitol every day on your way to work, but it also means you might get mugged just a few blocks from the Capitol if you aren't careful. Living in DC means you get to take advantage of a world-class public transportation system (the Metro), but it also means you're likely to return home to find your car has been stolen, ticketed, booted, or towed.

This divide affects me every day. I love living in Washington; I hate living in the District. I love that I can walk to the National Gallery of Art and see a different Shakespeare play nearly every month. I love the best church I've ever found, which is here. But I hate being stranded on one side of the city because all the roads have been shut down for a marathon. And I really, really detest dealing with the District's government.

I had to visit the city courthouse five times before I could get a marriage license. I've gotten more parking tickets than I can count, and my car has been booted and then towed after I paid the fine for which the boot had been placed. Recently I sold the car, canceled my insurance, and turned in my license plates to the DMV. That's the end of that headache, right? Nope. I received a letter in the mail telling me I'd been fined $171.50 because I didn't do it in the proper order. An order I searched for, in vain, on the DMV's web site before I sold the car. Now I've been fined $171.50 on account of a car I don't even own anymore.

I love this city, and I will miss it when we move away. But in some ways, I hate this city, and I can't wait to be gone.

More on Global Warming

Here's another documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle," produced by a British media organization. It goes even more in-depth into the problems with the theory of human-influenced global warming, including the history of the movement and some of the effects it's having around the world. Just a few of the interesting and disturbing points I noted from the film:

- Carbon dioxide levels do rise roughly in conjunction with global temperatures--but they lag behind the temperature variations by as much as hundreds of years.

- The oceans relase vastly more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans--so do animals, bacteria, decaying plants, and volcanoes.

- The sun is a huge factor in global temperature variations. Solar astronomers have become remarkably accurate at predicting long-term temperatures, more so even than terrestrial climatologists and meteorologists.

- Political attention on human-influenced global warming began as a political strategy employed by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s as a way to promote nuclear energy over coal and oil. She didn't trust the middle east, and her government was having problems with labor strikes by the UK's miners.

- US federal funding for global warming-related research went from $178 million to over $2 billion in the early 1990s. It is now over $4 billion. A lot of science that has little or nothing to do with global warming is being clothed in global-warming language so that the researchers can get funding for their own pet projects.

- In the name of preventing more carbon dioxide "pollution," the developing world is essentially being encouraged not to develop, not to touch their oil and coal resources. This has disastrous consequences for public health--whole rafts of illnesses and causes of early death can be directly linked to not having access to electricity.

I am increasingly worried about the consequences of this whole global warming mess. Not concerned about what might happen if we don't somehow check the warming, but rather about what the consequences of the hype itself might be. Too, it is a disturbing illustration of how a few loud voices can deceive an entire society by capturing the media and public attention, completely ignoring the truth.

Update: If you want to see a shorter version of the documentary than the hour-and-a-quarter version I link to above, go to Eric Langborgh's website, here.

Applied Shakespeare 101

On Tuesday, Andrea and I attended a performance of William Shakespeare's Coriolanus by the Royal Shakespeare Company at the Kennedy Center. While the RSC undoubtedly put as much oompfh into the production as one would expect from their world-class reputation, the play nonetheless failed to scintillate. Apparently, just being the greatest English playwright ever doesn't automatically guarantee that all your plays are great. While Andrea was so unimpressed that she spent most of the second half snoozing, I was busy redeeming the time by noting a number of useful passages from the play's text that should come in handy at one point or another.

For students of a Southern Baptist seminary: "Have we no wine here?" (Act I, Scene IX)

For those with fickle spouses: "He that depends upon your favours swims with fins of lead, and hews down oaks with rushes." (Act I, Scene I)

For one who must gracefully bow out of a conversation: "More of your conversation would infect my brain." (Act II, Scene I)

For professors plagued by troublesome students: "What's the matter you dissentious rogue that, rubbing the poor itch of your opinion, make yourselves scabs?" (Act I, Scene I)

A sober warning for those who would become pastors: "Priests must become mockers, if they shall encounter such ridiculous subjects as you are." (Act II, Scene I)

And a friendly fare-thee-well for those situations when "'Bye" just won't do:
"All the contagion of the south light on you,
You shames of Rome!--you herd of--Boils and plagues
Plaster you o'er, that you may be abhorr'd
Farther than seen, and one infect another
Against the wind a mile! You souls of geese
That bear the shapes of men..."
(Act I, Scene IV)

Now, who ever said that a liberal arts education isn't useful? Ol' Bill is just full of practical wisdom and useful phrases for everyday life.

Forgiveness

Blogger Alan Cornett wrote a post about forgiveness with regard to a specific incident that has been in the news lately, and it sparked a lively debate among commenters on the question of whether or not it's possible to forgive someone who has not asked for forgiveness. My response (to commenter "Anonymous") got a bit long for a simple comment, so it is posted here.
The nub of this debate seems to come down to a difference over the nature of forgiveness. Is it a two-way transaction that takes place between two willing parties (the offender and the offended), or is it a unilateral act on the part of the one offended? Anonymous believes it is the former; I humbly argue that Scripture and plain reason indicate it is the latter.

Dictionaries give several definitions for "forgive" and "forgiveness," however, they all seem to point to things that one person, alone, can do unilaterally: to grant pardon for a debt or offense; to cease to feel resentment against another, etc. Obviously, merely citing a dictionary does not conclusively prove the matter; we have to be sure that Scripture speaks of forgiveness in the same way that our dictionary authors understand it. However, this is useful in two respects: first, it indicates a generally agreed-upon understanding of the meaning of forgiveness as a unilateral act, and second, it helps provide illumination of the fact that those who have translated the Bible into English believe that "forgive" and "forgiveness" are appropriate translations of the relevant Greek and Hebrew words of Scripture.

Moving on to Scripture itself, it's clear that the Bible consistently treats forgiveness as something that the one offended does or grants, regardless of whether the offender asks for it or even acknowledges it. Moses and the prophets beg the Lord to forgive the sins of Israel, a "stiff-necked people," often when Israel had not asked for the Lord's forgiveness, had not repented their sins, and sometimes even while they were still engaged in rebellion and idolatry!
We find repeated instructions in the New Testament that believers are to be characterized by forgiveness. Paul tells the Corinthians to forgive the one they had cast out of their fellowship because of his sin. He tells the Colossians, "Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another." Jesus teaches that we should be willing to forgive another as many times as he sins against us--his "seventy times seven" in Matthew 18 is a way of saying there is no limit to the number of times we should forgive. What's interesting is that in each of these cases, the command to forgive is absolute, not contingent. It isn't qualified with "If your brother asks your forgiveness..." The only instance I can find where there is such a conditonal is in Luke 17:4, where Jesus says, "If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him." In this case, however, Jesus' point is not that you have to wait until you're asked to forgive, but that when you are asked there is no point at which you don't have to forgive anymore.

Perhaps the strongest argument for forgiveness as a unilateral act are the actions of Jesus himself. Consider the case in Luke where the paralyzed man is brought by his friends to see Jesus. This man was not coming to Christ to ask him for forgiveness from sins. If anything, he asked Jesus for something altogether different--healing from his paralysis. But what does Jesus do? He announces to him, "Friend, your sins are forgiven." Jesus granted him forgiveness when he had not asked for it or expected it, to demonstrate that He had authority over sin because of who he was. He was turning their world upside-down by bringing to them what they used to have to go and seek at the Temple.

As Alan already pointed out, witholding forgiveness when it hasn't been sought by the one who needs it is not an act of piety or even of necessity. It's an act of disobedience and a confusion of our role with God's. Ours is to forgive the sinner, in light of how greatly we have been forgiven in Christ. God's is to forgive that sin or not; to punish that sin, either in Christ's death on the Cross or in that sinner's person, in hell.

Global Warming

The Friar over at Reason & Revelation links (1, 2) today to a very interesting documentary challenging the prevailing opinion on human-induced climate change. Produced by a researcher named Hayward who works with, among others, the American Enterprise Institute, the video shows that much of the hype about global warming being propagated by Al Gore, among others, is just that--hype.

Several interesting points:
- There's good evidence for a medieval (pre-industrial) warm period that mirrors the present warming trend.
- Contrary to most people's assumption, environmental quality in most of the US is getting better, not worse.
- The most dire predictions about rise in global temperature are based on wildly implausible forecasts about industrial and economic growth--such as North Korea's exceeding US economic levels by 2100.
- The most conservative predictions about rise in global temperature are based on current emissions growth levels that have basis in actual fact.

There seems to be general consensus that global warming is happening. The science available does back that up. What there is considerably less consensus about--despite what many journalists and politicians would have us believe--is why that warming is taking place, to what extent it will contiue or worsen, and how drastic its effects will be. I'm not yet convinced that the most prominent voices' message--that humans are destroying the planet--is anything more than hype with little or not basis in fact.

Patrick Henry College

Readers of this blog may remember references I've made over the past couple of years to goings on at my alma mater, Patrick Henry College. To sum up, while I had an overall good experience (albeit a frustrating one, at times), the school has changed drastically in the last year or two, to the point that it's virtually unrecognizable as the same school I graduated from. That alone would be enough for me not to be able to recommend it to anyone now, but it gets worse. The events of the past year or more concern me enough that I would actively work to dissuade anyone I care about from attending PHC. It's just not a good place to be, and hopes for improvement are slim, at best.

If anyone is curious about the events that have led me to this conclusion, you can find out a great deal more on the website of the Concerned Alumni of Patrick Henry. If you, or anyone you know, is interested in attending or working at PHC, you need to read the contents of this site carefully and thoroughly.

Good news for people with taste

According to NPR, "the fastest-growing segment of music sales in 2006 wasn't rock, dancehall, or hip-hop; it was classical music." (HT: Gideon Strauss.)

Classical radio in Washington, DC has had a somewhat turbulent time of late. First, the city's only classical station switched frequencies because its previous one (the strongest in the area and Arbitron's highest-rated station) was bought out by an all-news format. I thought it had gone off the air altogether, but then I discovered it had moved to a new frequency, albeit a much weaker one. Still, I was glad there was still a classical music option on regular broadcast radio, as I don't want to sign up for XM or Sirius.

Then, a few months ago, I found out that the second station had been bought out by Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who planned on turning it into a sports-talk station (of which the city already had three). At the time when I read it in the paper, there were no plans for another classical-format station in the DC area.

Thankfully, however, when the station did switch, I found that one of the city's two NPR stations had changed formats to become the new (and still the only) classical station on the air. As it turns out, this switch has been a positive thing. Because the old station was a for-profit venture, it ran commercials and its DJs tended to play only the most familiar, popular classical works--pieces which can be both great and clichéd at the same time. The new station, because it is public radio, doesn't air commercials and isn't obligated to play only what sells. Now I get to hear things that the old station rarely or never played--organ music, vocal works, baroque and twentieth-century selections, and, on Saturday afternoons, Live from the Met opera performances.

Looks as though classical music--both here in DC and across the country--is alive and well.

Oh, one other thing--check out the Met's new series of opera perfomances broadcast in high definition to movie theaters around the country. You'll get most of the experience of attending a world-class live opera performance, for less than half the cost of the cheapest seats at the Met.